Gas Attack in Syria

[Thanas]

Genocide?

Why? He is already killing his opponents and their families (and the rebels are doing the same). For what reason is he going to attack third parties?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

On the contrary, the world community (if there is such) values stability highly. If a government can swiftly and decisively put down a rebellion then the rest of the world will shrug and move on to the next crisis.

I must be really difficult to parse, but that's exactly what I said. My reservation is that Assad probably cannot bring a swift end, not anymore at least.

[Broomstick]

This has repeated itself with multiple different operations and I see no reason why this is the last stage (yes, you can escalate beyond CW).

with what?

I was wondering where Ace was going with that myself. Escalate beyond CW?

What does that mean, biological agents? Risky - start a plague and it can jump to unexpected parties, cross borders, and otherwise get out of control. When it has been used effectively in the past it was either because the target group was literally walled into a limited area (such as lobbing diseased carcasses into a fortification under seige) or because one group had vastly greater immunity to the agent than the other (see measles and smallpox in North and South America, quite a bit of that being unintentional spreading before anyone caught on to distributing free but infected blankets to the natives). There's no reason one ethnic group in Syria would have greater immunity to a bio-agent than the others, unless the using faction has been inoculating against something recently or is able to seal itself away from a sick population, or wall up a sick population. Is there any evidence of that? If not, use of bio-agents is unlikely since they can so easily turn on the user.

Nuclear? Syria doesn't have nuclear bombs. Of course, one could make "dirty bombs", and if you don't mind being crude about it all one needs is a sufficient supply of medical imaging devices to supply radioactive material. There have been, after all, some tragic incidents in dumps where improperly disposed of nuclear medical materials have killed people by accident. The downside, of course, is that sufficiently powdered shit of that sort is easily spread around, drifts downwind, and persists in the environment for quite some time, rendering the affect regions useless for human use. Now, if we were talking about a remote area, maybe, but a chunk of Damascus?

It's chilling to think that of the NBC triad chemical weapons, as horrific as they are, are the least likely to turn on the user, get out of control, or keep killing for decades after deployment as the chemical agents degrade rather rapidly over time.

So, other than the suggested genocide, which would have to be by more conventional means, I don't see ramping up from chemical weapons. I suppose there are things like saturation bombing, incendiary bombing (which we apparently have one instance of) which might be increased sufficiently to produce a firestorm or conflagration, wholesale massacre of the unarmed with bullets and/or explosives, siege leading to starvation or death from thirst... sure, there are lots of ways to kill a lot of people, particularly the unarmed.

The question is, is the world going to actually do anything about it? I think as long as the fighting and the weapons remain confined to Syria no, the world is not. This is, no doubt, frustrating to some Middle Eastern nations - Jordan, as just one example, is having to deal with an influx of refugees and I'm not sure Jordan really has the resources to handle the sheer numbers coming over the border. Saudi Arabi is, apparently, wanting someone to Do Something but no one seems eager to step forward this time around.

Short of the fighting spilling over the border, someone releasing smallpox (very unlikely, as last I heard only the US and Russia have samples and I don't see either nation sharing with anyone), or popping off a nuke (fallout doesn't respect borders) I don't see the rest of the world wanting to get involved in this. And while I approve of the moral outrage I don't see any benefit to anyone getting involved in the civil war. It won't fix anything, and has a significant chance of making things worse. In this case "do no harm" might, in the long run, be the best course for the greatest number of people even if that means more horrific videos on YouTube.

[Broomstick]

On the contrary, the world community (if there is such) values stability highly. If a government can swiftly and decisively put down a rebellion then the rest of the world will shrug and move on to the next crisis.

I must be really difficult to parse, but that's exactly what I said. My reservation is that Assad probably cannot bring a swift end, not anymore at least.

Threads like this seem to have instances of people rephrasing what other people say. I do, however, disagree about Assad not being able to bring a swift end to the fighting. If it is true that Syria has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons, along with incendiary weapons, then a regime with sufficient resolve could bring the fighting to rapid end by simply killing off massive numbers of its own people. The downside, of course, is that while such a regime might remain in power afterwards they could be a pariah on the world stage, possibly even more so than North Korea. Or maybe not - certainly we've seen regimes willing to kill millions of their own over the past century and still remain major players on the world stage. It all depends on what the people holding the weapons are capable of doing, and how powerful the winner emerging from the ashes is.

That is something we risk by doing nothing: Assad thinking that it would somehow be OK to butcher however many required to pacify the remaining population. And, thanks to the wonders of the 21st Century we'll get to see it all on YouTube. In the past it might have been easier to step back and not get involved when it took weeks for news to filter out about atrocities but these days we get to see it live on YouTube when people are seizing and choking on their own vomit or children are burned to death by fire raining out of the sky.

[The Romulan Republic]

We should see it. People should not get to be in denial about what is happening and the consequences of our choices.

[Broomstick]

While I agree with that, saturation of the media with such images can also lead to unintended consequences or manipulation of the population. Watching people die horribly stirs up emotion in normal people (and even a lot of not so normal people) and can lead to decisions based on emotion rather than reason. We need reason for these situations.

[Zaune]

Some sort of bioweapon attack as a final fuck-you is somewhat plausible if and when it looks like the rebels might actually win. There's probably elements within the loyalist faction who'd have nothing to lose by carrying it out if Assad gave the order, too.

[TheHammer]

Yes that was better. I did not like the idea of a US intervention. When I say he lost face in this I'm referring to the fact that he should have stayed away from talks about red lines in the first place.
The way I see it right now, he made some threats about there being a red line. Now that it's crossed he does nothing = loss of credibility.

From Obama's perspective, the consequences for "crossing the red-line", would be him calling for direct military action where as previously he had not done so. He's made his feelings on the matter clear, and is going to leave it to Congress to actually approve or reject the notion. In all reality, this is consistent with the position he took when he first ran for President, even if he didn't do so in the case of Libya.

[Simon_Jester]

Some sort of bioweapon attack as a final fuck-you is somewhat plausible if and when it looks like the rebels might actually win. There's probably elements within the loyalist faction who'd have nothing to lose by carrying it out if Assad gave the order, too.

Unless it looks like the rebels are going to literally massacre the entire families of everyone with any power in the regime, they will have something to lose, because a bioweapon attack is almost as likely to kill your six year old niece as it is to kill the enemy.

Also, there is no evidence that Syria actually has such weapons in the first place.

[Ace Pace]

This has repeated itself with multiple different operations and I see no reason why this is the last stage (yes, you can escalate beyond CW).

with what?

I was wondering where Ace was going with that myself. Escalate beyond CW?

So, other than the suggested genocide, which would have to be by more conventional means, I don't see ramping up from chemical weapons. I suppose there are things like saturation bombing, incendiary bombing (which we apparently have one instance of) which might be increased sufficiently to produce a firestorm or conflagration, wholesale massacre of the unarmed with bullets and/or explosives, siege leading to starvation or death from thirst... sure, there are lots of ways to kill a lot of people, particularly the unarmed.

This. Specifically, Assad has yet to fully deploy incendiary bombs. Nor has he used his full range of CW weapons. Or moved to simply cutting off food/water supplies to neighborhoods that are held in rebel hands.
There's still quite a few things he can do that will more horrible than Sarin.

[Zaune]

Unless it looks like the rebels are going to literally massacre the entire families of everyone with any power in the regime, they will have something to lose, because a bioweapon attack is almost as likely to kill your six year old niece as it is to kill the enemy.

Also, there is no evidence that Syria actually has such weapons in the first place.

I imagine it's possible to have one's immediate family vaccinated against them on the quiet, but if not? The senior management of Assad's secret police are almost certainly going to hang, possibly along with their next-of-kin if the rebel group who find them first are sufficiently browned off.

And it's not a great leap of reasoning to suppose that a regime which not only stockpiles gas but is apparently prepared to use it would have at least tried to get hold of some biological weapons as well.

[Thanas]

This. Specifically, Assad has yet to fully deploy incendiary bombs. Nor has he used his full range of CW weapons. Or moved to simply cutting off food/water supplies to neighborhoods that are held in rebel hands.
There's still quite a few things he can do that will more horrible than Sarin.

So in short, he might intensify what he is already doing. Not that big of an argument for intervention. Civil wars are always nasty.

[Simon_Jester]

I imagine it's possible to have one's immediate family vaccinated against them on the quiet, but if not? The senior management of Assad's secret police are almost certainly going to hang, possibly along with their next-of-kin if the rebel group who find them first are sufficiently browned off.

Yes, but it's not like they personally are going to be the ones releasing biological weapons. They're not really even in the right chain of command, necessarily. So they wouldn't have the training or easy access to the weapons that you could get by ordering "General X, tell your men to activate the preplanned Omega Contingency" or whatever when those are the guys that routinely guard and prepare to operate the bioweapons.

And it's not a great leap of reasoning to suppose that a regime which not only stockpiles gas but is apparently prepared to use it would have at least tried to get hold of some biological weapons as well.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that they've done so, in a world where we're so paranoid about spotting WMD research programs that we have more of a problem with false positives (Iraq) than false negatives.

And seriously, it's not about how the regime scores on the evil-o-meter, it's about strategy. Syria's efforts to develop chemical weapons make sense in terms of who they're probably most worried about fighting: Turkey and Israel. Both of which countries have on average better-equipped militaries than Syria does; Syria needs an equalizer.

But while they might be willing to inflict a plague on Turkey or Israel, doing so would almost certainly backfire. The countries most likely to profit from a bioweapon are those naturally insulated from catching it (say, islands or countries where travel is restricted), those which have a better health care infrastructure and are in general more capable of handling the effects than their enemy (say, the 1965 US versus 1965 China), and those which are worried about total national destruction that makes a plague seem like small potatoes by comparison (say, Israel planning for the 'get invaded by all our neighbors and lose' scenario).

Syria is unlikely to be invaded by an outside force bent on destroying it utterly, doesn't have natural insulation from catching its own diseases, and doesn't really have better health care infrastructure than its neighbors. They might honestly look into bioweapons and go "I don't think this is worth the hassle and the risk of something going wrong."

[Knife]

We should see it. People should not get to be in denial about what is happening and the consequences of our choices.

Our choices?

[The Romulan Republic]

That could refer to various things including weather or not to intervene, how we intervene, and choices that have decreased our ability to intervene (like the invasion of Iraq).

[cosmicalstorm]

With the buildup of military vessels in the area from both Russia and America this is getting a bit scary.

Unless it looks like the rebels are going to literally massacre the entire families of everyone with any power in the regime, they will have something to lose, because a bioweapon attack is almost as likely to kill your six year old niece as it is to kill the enemy.

Also, there is no evidence that Syria actually has such weapons in the first place.

I imagine it's possible to have one's immediate family vaccinated against them on the quiet, but if not? The senior management of Assad's secret police are almost certainly going to hang, possibly along with their next-of-kin if the rebel group who find them first are sufficiently browned off.

And it's not a great leap of reasoning to suppose that a regime which not only stockpiles gas but is apparently prepared to use it would have at least tried to get hold of some biological weapons as well.

I don't understand that statement.
Do you think that "senior managers" will be the only ones to die if the rebels succeed?

[Ace Pace]

This. Specifically, Assad has yet to fully deploy incendiary bombs. Nor has he used his full range of CW weapons. Or moved to simply cutting off food/water supplies to neighborhoods that are held in rebel hands.
There's still quite a few things he can do that will more horrible than Sarin.

So in short, he might intensify what he is already doing. Not that big of an argument for intervention. Civil wars are always nasty.

I have no wish for intervention, seeing as how it would massively complicate my life. But I do think that intervention might force Syria back to using more "primitive" means to butcher people, though I repeat I think intervention would be folly.

[cosmicalstorm]

Didn't the entire Vietnam war start with a minor intervention somewhere? The US needs to stay away from this.

Hizbollah has mobilized, these days you can tell when they turn of their cellphones
http://www.timesofisrael.com/hezbollah- ... -showdown/

[Simon_Jester]

The Vietnam War, as we know it today, started either with a failed attempt to help someone else keep control of a colony (which could obviously backfire) or with the US essentially declaring war on North Vietnam after mistakenly believing that the North had attacked a US warship and massively escalating its support for the South.

This is a little different. The main issue in keeping the war from becoming a massive thing for the US or Europeans would be just... not occupying land, really. That's what turns these things into big guerilla wars- when a Western power occupies land beyond, at most, a few active military bases, and thus runs into opposition from local power blocs that have something to gain by repelling them.

[Thanas]

You mean "after fabricating evidence of an attack on a US warship".

[Admiral Valdemar]

Israel and the US just checked their defences with a missile test. Certainly got Russia's attention.

[Dartzap]

Should make for a perfectly civil G20 meeting then. I can't remember who is hosting, hmmm... Ah, I'm sure it began with an R!

[Simon_Jester]

You mean "after fabricating evidence of an attack on a US warship".

I am sorry, it was not my intent to misrepresent US actions. I have honestly forgotten whatever evidence we now have, that the evidence of the Tonkin Gulf "attack" was fabricated. All I remembered is that there was not, in fact, an attack. Since it was not critical to my point, I hope we can move on; thank you for the correction.

[Alyeska]

You mean "after fabricating evidence of an attack on a US warship".

My understanding is the attack was quite real. It was deliberately provoked. And deliberately used the international waters disagreement to cause the incident. But it wasn't fabricated.

I would say the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a lie of omission. But not an utter fabrication.

[Gaidin]

There were two stages as I understand it. The first stage was quite real. The second stage was radar ghosts, and they reacted. Johnson made his decision within 30 minutes. I think the distortion of the event, as I understand it, is that at the time decisions were made at least, Johnson and McNamara were both unsure of what the second incident was. McNamara had in fact held back that the naval captain had changed his mind about the alleged torpedo attack that was reported earlier that day.